clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

I Just Have to Call People Out for Things Like This

I hate these kinds of sleights of hand:

Pirates are 8 wins better at season's midpoint than '06

..."If we have a good week going into the All-Star break, we're looking pretty good," Jack Wilson said. "Last year, we had nothing [going for us] leading into the second half. It was all negative. And we went out and played awesome."

"Awesome" being the compilation of a 37-35 record after the All-Star break.

"And we could play even better than that," Wilson said. "Knowing that this team can repeat what it did in the second half last year with more enthusiasm, it could be good."

What to say here? We've heard from everyone associated with the Pirates that their 37-35 record after the All-Star break last year represented the start of a turnaround (and never mind that their records before and after the break last year were similar in terms of runs scored and runs allowed). Now that the first half of 2007 is over and it's plain the Pirates still aren't a .500 team, the Post-Gazette is comparing them to... the first half of last year, when their record was horrible, as if that second half that was supposed to be such a great leap forward doesn't actually matter. Or maybe the subtext here is that winning in the first half and winning in the second represent totally different skills. I'm not sure. Either way, it's a really silly and intentionally rose-colored way of presenting the situation. Why not just compare the Pirates' record now to the Pirates' record last year?

2007 winning percentage: .438
2006 winning percentage: .414

Yeah, not so exciting.

Also, a 37-35 record is "awesome"? Really? What planet is Jack Wilson on?